Sign In to View Projects
History
  • No items yet
midpage
Stebbins v. Doe
4:23-cv-00321
| N.D. Cal. | May 16, 2025
Case Information

*1 Case 3:23-cv-00321-MMC Document 45 Filed 05/16/25 Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7

DAVID A. STEBBINS, Case No. 23-cv-00321-MMC 8 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 10 INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND TO SYDNEY REDFIELD, STAY DEADLINE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS Defendant.

Before the Court is plaintiff David A. Stebbins’ “Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal and to Stay Deadline for Service of Process Pending Said Appeal,” filed May 15, 2025. Having considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, a district court may certify for interlocutory appeal an order where (1) “such order involves a controlling question of law,” (2) “there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” as to such question of law, and (3) “an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); see also ICTSI Oregon, Inc. v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, 22 F.4 th 1125, 1129-30, 1132 (9 th Cir. 2022) (holding “controlling

22 question of law must be one of law—not fact”; further holding “substantial grounds prong” 23 requires, inter alia “novel legal issues,” and “materially advance prong” means 24 “appreciably shorten the time, effort, or expense of conducting the district court 25 proceeding”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 26 In support of the instant motion, plaintiff has made no showing as to the factors 27 applicable here, rather, he cites to Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 28 *2 Case 3:23-cv-00321-MMC Document 45 Filed 05/16/25 Page 2 of 2 545 (1949), a case that concerned a “small class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action,” and, consequently, allow for appeal as a matter of right.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2025 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2

AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.